masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:M-96 Mattock
Does the Mattock effectively render the Vindicator useless? I can't see myself ever using the Vindicator again. 01:00, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :Well I think that will come down to personal playstyle and what mission or assignment you are doing. Personally I can see myself still using the M-15 and the M-96. Depending on the situation of course. Lancer1289 01:04, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :It's definitely situational. Due to the burst-fire mode and higher ROF, the Vindicator will still let you do more damage in a shorter amount of time (assuming each shot in the burst connects), but also chews up ammo faster. The Mattock is more like a sniper rifle without a scope. 05:35, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :The Vindicator is more accurate, which makes it better at picking off enemies from cover when you're under very heavy fire. For a soldier using adrenaline rush, its still superior for picking off low level enemies, since the Vindicator can bring them down with two quick headshots. However; when you want to bring down a higher level enemy the Mattock is vastly superior since it can lay down so much damage so quickly. Against Krogan the Mattock is freaking incredible, even on Insanity I can bring one down in the course of a single Heightened Adrenaline Rush. The biggest advantage the Mattock has in my opinion is that so long as you strive for accuracy it's less ammo hungry than the Vindicator. You can empty the clip faster; but it also seems to pick up a lot more rounds from each thermal clip (I've noticed around 20 rounds per clip) - User:Implodinggoat, 19:20 August 5th, 2010 ::The Mattock fires as fast as you can press the trigger (up to the hard cap of 750 RPM). You can easily exceed the Vindicator's peak fire rate of 6 rounds/sec, which makes the dps _hugely_ superior. Athenau 13:53, August 4, 2010 (UTC) ::But would it make the Vindicator redundant for squadmates? Tali's no.1 fan 19:50, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :::Not necessarily. I have found that weapons and armor components complely depend on personal playstyle and I have found that in just a few missions, that the Vindicator is better because squadmates seem to hit more often, and do more damage, then with the Mattock. Don't forget also that squadmates do less damage than the player does, and they usually fire less often. So this may be good for Shepard, but my opinion, less so for squadmates. Lancer1289 20:00, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :::- Squadmates seem to be pretty damn brutal wielding the Mattock. They lay down a lot of supressing fire like they would with a Viper Sniper Rifle; but they fire more often and end up doing more damage . I'd say it ranks up with the Incisor as one of the best weapons in the hands of a squadmate. I just did Grunt's loyalty mission with Grunt and Zaeed packing Mattocks and they made short work of the Varren and Klixen. The only weapon I've seen a squadmate do more damage with is the Revenant and that requires some modding. User:Implodinggoat :::: This I was wondering, what squadmates are good with particular weapons? Garrus, for example, is superb with the Mantis, but Zaeed and Thane not; Jack's kick a** huge with the Phalanx, but Miranda sucks it (but shines with the Carnifex); Zaeed and Grunt are really good with the Mattock and I noted that Zaeed fires more shots than Grunt (Garrus is very good with the Collector AR). Jacob is really good with the Eviscerator, but medium with the new shotgun (Tali seems to be better). It's just my impression or some weapons, even the DLCs ones, are better than others for certain squad mates? Glitch I've noticed that this rifle and the new Geth Plasma Shotgun don't appear in cutscenes. I started a new soldier career to test these weapons and the Avenger appears in cutscenes instead of the Mattock and the Geth Shotgun is replaced by the Katana for cutscenes, but changes back to the actual weapon immediately after. Is this happening to anyone else? If so should that be mentioned in the article? Magicman10893 23:12, August 4, 2010 (UTC) I can't comment on the Geth Plasma Shotgun as I haven't used it much yet, but I've found that both the Mattock and the Phalanx are present in cutscenes when equpied on Shepard and squadmates (PC version). ZebedeeLPS 11:23, August 5, 2010 (UTC) :Jacob was equipped with the Geth Shotgun and in Freedom's Progress he was holding the Katana for a second during the cutscene with the YMIR Mech and Shepard was holding the Avenger instead of the Mattock. Then while recruiting Garrus, Shepard was holding the Avenger instead of the Mattock during the cutscene where Garrus wasn't moving and then started gasping for breath. Magicman10893 03:29, August 6, 2010 (UTC) RPM 750? That can't be right. That's faster than the Revenant, and this is a Semi-Auto weapon. Where'd that number come from? Is it supposed to be 75? JakePT 10:10, August 5, 2010 (UTC) :Er, no. 750 RPM is correct. This gun will fire as fast as you can mash on the trigger again. 750RPM comes from the ini files, just like the RPM stats for every other gun. -- Dammej (talk) 15:47, August 5, 2010 (UTC) :The RPM number is a cap on how fast the weapon will fire. So if you can mash the trigger 12.5 times a second you'll get 750 RPM out of it. Mere mortals will get less. Athenau 15:52, August 5, 2010 (UTC) ::Shepard is no mere mortal. :) If I'm not mistaken, one can actually hit the 750 RPM cap while in an Adrenaline Rush. There's a very noticable gap between shots of the Revenant while using AR, so it seems like it'd be feasible anyway. I'll have to start a Soldier playthrough just to verify that this is possible. -- Dammej (talk) 16:21, August 5, 2010 (UTC) :::Because I was curious, I made an Autohotkey script to make a full-auto "bullet-hose" mode for the gun. It pretty much matches the revenant in fire rate, confirming the statistic. It's quite amusing, reloading just over every second. -- Dammej (talk) 20:16, August 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::I also confirmed that you can max the fire rate during adrenaline rush. .3 (70% time dilation from heightened adrenaline rush) x 750 = 225 RPM which is really easy to reach by tap firing. Athenau 00:13, August 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::An "Auto-Mattock". 03:15, February 20, 2013 (UTC) Rate of fire I attempted to modify this article due to a small error in description. It's recoil is not lesser, then Viper's; in fact, Mattock is based of Viper and recoil is EXACTLY the same. For proof view BIOWeapon.ini in dlc folder. Actually, here is the part that is of interest for us: - Maybe it just seems like the recoil is less substantial since the Mattock doesn't have a scope. - User:Implodinggoat ; ;; Recoil ;; Zoomed accuracy MinZoomAimError=(X=0.35f,Y=0.35f) MaxZoomAimError=(X=1.5,Y=1.5) ZoomAccFirePenalty=40f ZoomAccFireInterpSpeed=38f ZoomCrosshairRange=(X=25,Y=40) ; ;; Recoil is completely based off the anti-mat rifle Recoil=(X=3.0f,Y=3.0f) ZoomRecoil=(X=1.5,Y=1.5) RecoilInterpSpeed=15.f RecoilFadeSpeed=3.0f RecoilZoomFadeSpeed=0.95f RecoilYawScale=0.2f RecoilYawBias=-0.2f RecoilYawFrequench=60 As we can see, even developing programmer's notes state that recoil is not different from anti-mat rifle. Comparison vs. Revenant I currently am using a Soldier character, and am playing on Veteran difficulty in preparation for Insanity difficulty when I import the character. I'm thinking when I get to the collector ship to pick up the M-98 Widow, but I'm experiencing a bit of a conundrum: I also have the Mattock and I'm wondering if it is truly better on the higher difficulties than the M-76 Revenant. Here's how I see it: The Mattock has superior firing capabilities (750 RPM, Semi-Auto, 50.4 damage/shot, effectiveness against Armor, Shields and Barriers above normal, and High/Moderate accuracy-to-recoil ratio) than the Revenant (700 RPM, Full-Auto, 21.3 damage/shot, above normal effectiveness against Armor, Shields and Barriers, and Low/Moderate accuracy-to-recoil ratio). The Revenant however has a larger clip size (80 vs. 16), and higher effectiveness against Armor (1.4x vs. 1.3x). On the downside, the Revenant has a muzzle-climb, which is negated through Adrenaline Rush, and thus has the potential to do much more damage using that power than the Mattock does (with only 16 shots). I researched that the high damage/clip ratio compared to the Mattock is a lifesaver if I play on Insanity, but it doesn't mention whether or not the Mattock is just as capable. Help? H-Man Havoc 22:59, February 14, 2011 (UTC) My opinion, forget both. Use the Geth Pulse Rifle along with the Widow. It's what I did on my first playthrough. I play on Hardcore and by the way, it would probably be better to play Hardcore before Insanity, it's a HUGE jump from Veteran to Insanity, plus you can only get the Pulse Rifle on one of the 2 top difficulty levels. The Geth Pulse Rifle is just sooooo fun, especially with Inferno Ammo. Moreover it's as accurate as the Mattock without the drawback of ammo. The Widow will cover heavily armoured targets and believe me, it's better than the Revenant or the Mattock at that. All that assuming you prefer a less aggressive, longer ranged play syle. If you're more aggressive, the Revenant works very well, whereas the Mattock is not a close-range weapon at all. Comparing the Mattock and the Revenant...I've never liked the Mattock that much. On high difficulty levels it won't boast enough ammo to be fully appreciated, so the Revenant would be better. However, on high difficulty levels, since most enemies have strong shields, I would think the Pulse Rifle best. Of course, you should change your weapon sets depending on the mission, but on high difficulties, I just don't think the Mattock suits a role as a main weapon in any case, purely due to ammo supply. I know a soldier has the benefit of a large variety of weapons, but I think it's much easier, especially on high difficulties, to use a more reserved play style with your assault rifle and sniper rifle. Usually, when I get killed, it's due to a stupid mistake, which is less likely to happen if you stay back a bit. Admitted, it is very fun to charge around with the Revenant laying down suppressing fire, so if you like that, go with the Revenant. If you don't and you choose the Widow, the Mattock doesn't complement it very well. At the end of the day, it depends on the mission and your personal playstyle. I'm sure lots of people will tell you that. Sorry for the essay, I often write more then I intend to. I'll stress again that my advice is totally my opinion. Tali's no.1 fan 00:02, February 24, 2011 (UTC) Ceteris paribus (all other variables kept constant) aside, I actually beat the game on Veteran difficulty with my soldier character, primarily using the Widow/Mattock combination. What really helped was fully upgrading Adrenaline Rush to Hardened AR (50% damage reduction), Combat Mastery to Shock Trooper (+1 second duration to all powers), Disruptor and Armor-Piercing Ammo. I died 6 times, the majority of them were because I did something stupid (referencing your earlier statement). With the time that I play each file, it doesn't make much sense to play Hardcore then Insanity, too long. As I'm importing my previous character, he'll already be fully equipped to deal with the various opponents early on. Looking forward to the Geth Pulse Rifle. H-Man Havoc 15:12, March 10, 2011 (UTC) I know I'm adding this a bit late, but when I play Soldier I exclusively play Insanity, and I've noticed (personally) a marked degradation in kill time on all enemy variants when using the Revenant over the Mattock. I've noticed it's mostly because I play a sort of hybridized mid-range rush (I push forward, yet keep to the mid range areas), and at that distance the Revenant will often miss one shot for every 3-5, edging on the lower side when bursting and higher when full auto, whereas the Mattock will miss far fewer, one shot for every 5-7 shooting it rapidly and no shots if I take my time to line them up. I have also noticed that the Mattock often refills in only 2-4 thermal clip pick ups, which is a very good refill rate, and if I run into an enemy at close range, a quick AR followed by spamming the clip into the head puts down nearly anything extremely quickly. I tried to use the Revenant and GPR after using the Mattock, and they both just felt extraordinarily underwhelming. Edit: Forgot to sign. 06:56, June 27, 2011 (UTC) I put it this way: unless you run out of ammo, Mattock is always better. If you do, try Revenant. I'll draw a little comparison: *Mattock: superior DPS and accuracy, and very high chance to panic or stun enemies (with inferno/disruptor ammo), which is a lifesaver on higher difficulties. However, on hardcore+ ammo can be problematic. You can either put more focus on other mid-range weapons (geth shotgun, viper), or switch to Revenant, which offers: *Revenant: unlimited ammo, high clip capacity, great DPS (better than other assault rifles sans Mattock), stylish looks. Low accuracy and chance to panic/stun/freeze enemies. The nature of this choice makes it personal preference. I like both weapons, and I didn't want to bother with shotguns and heavies, so I switched to Revenant when I ran into ammo problem on Hardcore. Stuck with it since then; unlimited ammo was a nice change of pace. Plus, it looks stylish. ^_^ Mitranim 09:30, June 27, 2011 (UTC) A Note That I Don't Think I'm Allowed To Add To The Article I'm posting this here because I think it may be useful to people, but it's based on interpretation of game files and therefore I'm not sure it would be a legitimate alteration to the article. According to the BIOWeapon file for the Firepower Pack, the Mattock has a "DamageHench" multiplier of 0.4. So squadmates deal 60% less base damage than Shepard. E.g. 50.4 x 0.4 = 20.16. The Mattock is listed as being more powerful than the Vindicator in a squad member's hands. However, the Vindicator does 36.8 x 0.55 = 20.24 (base damage per shot). So it turns out the Vindicator does more damage. And note that the Vindicator is confirmed as doing 45% less damage in a squadmate's hands. The Mattock does do slightly more damage to armour, but given that squadmates - in my experience - seem to fire the Vindicator far more often, I feel the Vindicator is more powerful in a squad member's hands than the Mattock. To be clear, I am not asking for any action to be taken about this, but feel free to comment. As much as I would like to change the article, I do believe that would be against site policy, so I am putting this here just so people know that I think the article is incorrect. Tali's no.1 fan 20:07, May 7, 2011 (UTC) The reason that the Mattock does more damage then the Vindicator is because the Mattock's high ROF cap means that squad mates will "pop" out of cover to open fire more often. In addition, the AI on squad mates tends to fire at the center of mass on a target unless they are using a sniper rifle. As a result, the Mattock is superior in practice to the Vindicator, but statistically inferior. This however, is only in relation of damage. Of the four squad mates that use assault rifles(Zaeed, Garrus, Grunt, and Legion), Garrus and Legion are very fragile. It's suggested to use the Vindicator when bringing them along, as the burst fire of it will force them to remain in cover more often and thusly take less damage. 22:43, May 7, 2011 (UTC) Legion, fragile? With a maximum possible Geth Shield of 1085? I don't think so. Zaeed, Garrus and Samara (you forgot her!) are the more fragile assault rifle users, though I've found Zaeed seems to be the best at keeping himself out of fire. I stand by what I said. I think squad members are much better with the Vindicator than the Mattock. I now only give the Mattock to Samara, and that's not so much due to functionality. Tali's no.1 fan 17:10, May 8, 2011 (UTC) :Wait, this has me thinking. If the note about squad use in the article is more down to how squad member's use it rather than the damage they deal, isn't the note too subjective? I'd suggest it be removed on these grounds, because it's really a matter of personal preferance how useful it is in squadmate hands. Tali's no.1 fan 20:37, May 10, 2011 (UTC) ::Any thoughts? In any case, saying it is "the most powerful assault rifle in the hands of an ally" is a subjective statement. Tali's no.1 fan 20:30, May 11, 2011 (UTC) Trivia must not be trivia or is not trivia? Yes, confusing title. Not a big deal, but it's bothered me for a bit. I added a note that the unique decal on the side of the rifle resembled the Peacekeeper symbol from Farscape. Remembering that the Collector General looked like the Pilot from the same show, I added it into the trivia... It was then deleted. Didn't really care, but I am wondering why it was deleted. That is a trivial thing, right? And as a Farscape fan I thought it was great to see. On that note I also wonder why everyone was so mad when that KOTOR II trivia kept popping up for Kasumi. No, it wasn't a BioWare game, but it was still the first things I thought of upon hearing her name and seeing her loyalty outfit. Didn't add it because of the debate, of course. And BioWare did start the series. If trivia has to be limited to other BioWare things... well, doesn't make sense, anyway... Also interested on seeing how much flame this post gets... But, just been wondering. Won't go re-adding the info. --Swordser, 23:45, Arizona time, US :Going back and reviewing this all at once, but on the first item I checked, I believe you are mistaken, sir. If you'll refer to the Collector General page, you'll note a trivia item stating that it resembles the Pilot from Farscape. This trivia note has been present for over a year now. SpartHawg948 06:52, June 4, 2011 (UTC) ::(edit conflict)While I wasn't the one who removed it, it was actually Legionwrex who didn't leave an edit summary why, which seems to be common with him. I would suggest that you contact him for his exact reasons, I would have removed it myself if given the chance. ::As to the trivia itself, it was an extremely subjective comparison. Your actual wording was "nearly identical to the Peacekeeper symbol". However, if you compare that with the actual symbol, they really don't have much in common. In fact it looks more like a backwards Q than anything resembling that symbol. ::Also another note, we don't limit trivia to just BioWare games, just voice actors, but that's a different matter. Trivia comes from a lot of places, and this one just isn't trivia because of the extremely subjective comparison. There is actually a comparison note about the resemblance between the pilot from Farscape and the Collector General on its page. Lancer1289 06:58, June 4, 2011 (UTC) :(edit conflict) As for the Peacekeeper symbol, you'd need to ask the editor who removed it. I would have removed it if I'd seen it first, simply because it doesn't strike me as an accurate statement. I'm assuming your edit was the one which added the following: "The symbol on the rifle is nearly identical to the Peacekeeper symbol from the scifi show Farscape." The problem here is that it isn't nearly identical. There are some passing similarities, but that's it. Look closely at the decal on the side of the rifle, then compare it to the Peacekeeper symbol. They are far from "nearly identical". And passing visual similarities, per site trivia policy, do not qualify as trivia. Ditto for seemingly coincidental name similarities, such as Goto and G0-T0. One is a name, the other an alphanumeric designation. They aren't the same, and there is next to nothing suggesting a link. As such, per site policy, it is not trivia. SpartHawg948 07:00, June 4, 2011 (UTC) ::And once again, Spart and myself seem to say the same thing. I'm curious as this happens often. Lancer1289 07:03, June 4, 2011 (UTC) :::Well, policy is black-and-white, making these things real no-brainers. Also, please, no re-arranging of posts. Particularly not on an active thread. 1) It's really not that kosher per site policy (it isn't explicitly forbidden, but it's also not encouraged, either, as it's always preferable to preserve the thread as-is to cut down on confusion for the reader), and 2) It makes it very frustrating if someone attempts to make a small change to their post, which normally wouldn't cause an edit conflict, but then someone else has moved it, causing an edit conflict. :P SpartHawg948 07:09, June 4, 2011 (UTC) :::::Well I figured I'd just put your comment together as it seemed that was to be the case, but I saved before you could do that. I'll refrain from doing it again. Lancer1289 07:15, June 4, 2011 (UTC) Or maybe, just maybe, you two are actually *Gasp* One person playing as though you are two!! Oh my god, the site policy horror!! Knight Captain Ski (Com Link) 07:22, June 4, 2011 (UTC) :(seriously? edit conflicted again? boo!) No, my comments were meant as two separate comments. The first one was a quick "Just started looking, but noticed this, I'll have more later" blurb. I wanted to fire off a quick response before digging in and doing research and getting to the nitty-gritty. If it had been meant as one comment, and I'd just accidentally hit enter or something, I wouldn't have signed it! :P :It just annoys me to get edit conflicted when making a minor change within my post (which shouldn't happen), and moving the comments around leads to confusion and such. SpartHawg948 07:24, June 4, 2011 (UTC) I was more making light of Lancer's comment on your both saying basically the same thing all the time in response to these types of things, so :P yourself sir :) . Knight Captain Ski (Com Link) 07:30, June 4, 2011 (UTC) :And my comment was not in response to yours at all. Hence the (edit conflict), which means I typed it out and hit save before having seen yours, then when I was edit conflicted, I just went back and pasted it on here. So yeah, no part of my comment was addressed to yours. Hence my confusion at the "so :P yourself sir :)" bit. SpartHawg948 07:40, June 4, 2011 (UTC) Very Effective Against Husks! Hi guys! I just wanted to recommend to you this gun against husks! It is so powerful, and in my play through as a soldier, I struggled on horizon as the revenant wasn't good enough, but when I did the Reaper IFF, this gun knocked em down like dominoes! I highly recommend to anyone playing as a soldier and struggling against husks! -- 20:32, December 4, 2011 (UTC)Mattock :This is not the point of talk pages. Take this kind of thing to the blogs for the forums. Lancer1289 20:46, December 4, 2011 (UTC) Acquisition in ME3 I actually bought my Mattock from a shop on the Presidium commons. Kassa Fabrications, I think. I also think it was after the Grissom Academy missions, because I remember seeing the Mattock in the Centurion's hands (during the cutscene near the escape) and wondering where I would get it. Can someone else confirm this? Stormkeeper 05:00, March 11, 2012 (UTC) :I can't speak for the Mattock, but I can say that most weapons seem to appear in shops if you don't pick them up during their specific missions. I missed the Raptor and Hornet during their respective missions, and bought them both from Batarian State Arms later on. I also recently missed the Carnifex and Phalanx, and both have appeared in the shop as well. Captain Baird Comm-Link'' '' 05:11, March 11, 2012 (UTC) Does anyone know when the Mattock will show up in stores after you miss the Grissom Academy mission? I'm well deep into the story after and have yet to see it in any store. -- 22:37, March 14, 2012 (UTC) I believe there are two Mattocks on Grissom Academy, though I cannot remember where 1 is (or if it is even there) there is a Mattock in the security armory directly after you save the students hiding inside the bubble shield, but only if David Archer form Overlord is there. TheRealTerminal 01:51, March 23, 2012 (UTC) Texture bug? Anyone else have what seems to be a bug with the texture when ammo capacity mod is installed? Most guns darken a little bit, Mattock gets turned into psychodelic mix of cream color and blue, which looks horrible. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 19:29, April 4, 2012 (UTC) Cerberus manufacteur ? Hello everyone, I noticed that the manufacteur was unknown, yet the Mattocks, while still being colonial rifle, are modified to use the thermal clip, not the unlimited ammo like in ME1. So even if Cerberus have not really created thoses weapons, they actually produce them and created the version that we know today, using the thermal clip. So should it be a good idea to say that Cerberus is the manufacteur (Like the Hornet or the Talon) or should we keep it "unknown" because they did not really created them ? TomZanovich 20:49, May 17, 2012 (UTC) :So did Cerberus spend the time to R&D the weapon? Did they prototype the weapon? The answer to those is no. If they are not the original manufacturer, then it is unknown. Modifying the weapon does not mean they are the original company who manufactured it, which is what matters here. Lancer1289 04:50, May 18, 2012 (UTC) M-96 Mattock Auto/Harrier Assault Rifle How could these two weapons being the same possibly be subjective? Let's look at the descriptions. M-96 Mattock Auto: "Mass Effect: Infiltrator features a fully automatic version of the rifle known as the M-96 Mattock Auto, complete with a yellow and white Cerberus" Harrier Assault Rifle: "These Cerberus-modified Mattock rifles are fully automatic." Yep, sound like totally different weapons to me as well! I mean I'm sure Cerberus would go to the trouble of creating two different full auto versions of the Mattock, they have nothing better to do. --DarthWindu 02:51, May 26, 2012 (UTC) In-universe you could consider the two guns to be the same thing, but this isn't written from an in-universe perspective. They are considered two different weapons because they are from two different games and have different names. Mr. Mittens 02:57, May 26, 2012 (UTC) :How do you know they aren't exactly the same gun, it's just that the Alliance didn't know it was called the Harrier? Look at the Rear Admiral Mikhailovich article - two different names, yet assumed to be the same person. --DarthWindu 05:29, May 26, 2012 (UTC) ::And do you have anything else apart from a subjective visual comparison? If not, then it is not trivia. It even states in the MoS that a straight visual comparison is not permitted in trivia sections. So either get something else, or cease this conversation because it will not change. Visual comparisons are hightly subjective to say the least. Lancer1289 16:31, May 26, 2012 (UTC) :::There is no 'subjective visual comparison', if you'd read the discussion you'd know that. The M-96 Mattock Auto is a, M-96 modified by Cerberus to be full auto. The Harrier Assault Rifle description clearly states that it is an M-96 modified by Cerberus to be full auto. Have a look at that page yourself, I'm not making this stuff up. --DarthWindu 03:44, May 28, 2012 (UTC) ::::They are the same gun, but BioWare decided to give it a more unique name. Regardless, I think the trivia piece as it's written now is reasonable enough. Mr. Mittens 05:26, May 28, 2012 (UTC) :::::It's possible that during Infiltrator that the Harrier was still in testing stages, taking place shortly before the invasion hit, and was designated as Mattock Auto by Cerberus gunsmiths, considering it used cooldown tech instead of clips. The modified version with clips was then designated the Cerberus Harrier to differentiate it from the prototype and show it as a Cerberus modified weapon. There's also the fact that Centurions utilize the standard Mattock, and the new name was to help the indoctrinated troops with identifying which weapon they would use. --Barduwulf (talk) 00:22, August 17, 2012 (UTC) Questionable usefulness Not for the first time, I find myself questioning the usefulness of this gun, which seems so popular, that it gets not one, but two variants. The problem I have with it is the M-5 Phalanx can totally replace it. It weighs waaaaaaaay less and does more damage, with a trade-off of slightly less ammo, which cancels that out, unless you don't care about ammo, like me. It's slightly less accurate, but can be given a scope like the Mattock and anyway, my words of wisdom are: if you can't hit something, get closer, coward. So...any thoughts on this logic??!?! I'm not sure whether to point this out in the article in case everyone goes nuts at me for dissing the Mattock. Know this: it is all based on logic. Stat comparison. :P Really, the only reason I would think to use it is out of personal preference. But I prefer the Phalanx. So it ends up being like one of those antique weapons you keep on your bedroom wall. Tali's no.1 fan 21:28, July 7, 2012 (UTC) :As a Vanguard, I tend to be literally touching people when I hit them with the Mattock, and I can trigger-finger it fast enough to make its DPS way exceed the Phalanx. In ME2, anyway. I'd call them even in ME3, with the Mattock being slightly more useful because of the Omni-Blade attachment. So stacking one opinion against another, I'd say it has to do with play style. Because I never have to "get closer, coward". CaptainThunderdude (talk) 03:31, January 29, 2014 (UTC) ~~ One word: Opinion. Besides, I hate the Phalanx. I can't hit anything with it. The Mattock, however... Leon S. Kennedy AKA Shepard 21:36, July 7, 2012 (UTC) :I'll say again, if you can't hit something, get closer... Tali's no.1 fan 09:45, July 8, 2012 (UTC) ::This does not belong here. This belong in the forum or a blog post as this is so not what talk pages are for. Talk page rules haven't changed. Lancer1289 19:00, July 8, 2012 (UTC) :::But I'm trying to discuss a possible edit to the article. I quote: "I'm not sure whether to point this out in the article..." Tali's no.1 fan 19:26, July 8, 2012 (UTC) ::::No you aren't. This is something that belongs in a forum or a blog. That is where opinions go. Lancer1289 19:29, July 8, 2012 (UTC) Excuse me? I think I know my intentions better than anyone else, so please do not say things like "No you aren't". I was not after opinions, per se; I was after discussions about the logic aforementioned, because I was wondering whether or not to add said logic to the article. Tali's no.1 fan 19:35, July 8, 2012 (UTC) :Perhaps Lancer was confused by your intermingling your preferences with your good reasons. As to those good reasons: I'm not saying you should add the Phalanx as a suggested alternative (in the Player Notes section), but we certainly do find suggested alternatives for XYZ reasons in other weapons articles. - Still, the Mattock has been buffed twice since Multiplayer began; are you sure about the damage comparison? And the Phalanx does not seem to admit of as fast a rate of fire. ---- AnotherRho (talk) 19:48, July 8, 2012 (UTC) ::I have both weapons at the same level and the Phalanx is definitely more damaging. It can't fire as fast, but the damage makes up for it. I can kill a Cannibal in about 3 headshots on Bronze. ::Indeed it's true my first post did have a lot of "expression" in it. I just find myself wondering all the time why the Mattock seems so popular. Tali's no.1 fan 20:38, July 8, 2012 (UTC) :::You're right; I was just checking the multiplayer-balance reports, and the Phalanx does appear to be more powerful per shot (level for level), but not per second (fire rate). As for its popularity, I would guess some of it has carried over from ME2, but I suppose we "should" talk about that on a user page or blog or watercooler page, lest we be policed away by the powers. Why not start a blog? ---- AnotherRho (talk) 22:41, July 8, 2012 (UTC) Nah, forget it. In all honesty, I think a lot of the weapons in ME3 are redundant or outclassed by others and only function to serve individual preferences. Tali's no.1 fan 10:25, July 9, 2012 (UTC) I'm a bit late to the party here, but I'll add my 2 cents anyways. While the M-5 Phalanx can serve as a viable replacement for the M-96 Mattock in-game, in-universe it likely could not. In real-world firearms, even though pistols can have stopping power roughly equal to (or sometimes even greater than) that of a rifle against "soft" targets, and are much lighter than rifles, they are not adequate replacements for an assault or battle rifle. Due to a number of factors, primarily barrel length and the nature of the cartridges they fire (and in turn their muzzle velocities), rifles have greater penetrative capabilities than pistols (rifles are generally capable of piercing body armor, while pistols typically are not) and have much greater effective ranges (while pistols are typically limited to 50 meters or less, the M16A4 for example can reliably hit targets somewhat smaller than the average human head at ranges exceeding 200 meters and the 5.56x45mm cartridge is still capable of incapacitating targets at that distance) than pistols do. While there would almost certainly be some differences between the operation, behavior, and capabilities of modern firearms and the weapons in Mass Effect, the weapons featured in the Mass Effect games still function in a nearly identical fashion to their modern equivalents (which really makes no sense since in reality the ballistic properties of all mass accelerators like those in Mass Effect would be virtually identical). The reason for the effective ranges of pistols and rifles often seeming so similar in video games is a technical one; firefights in video games are forced to occur at unusually short distances because if they were to occur at more realistic distances the player would be unable to see their targets due to graphical limitations. »Anonymous ONI agent« [COMMS] ] 18:19, August 25, 2012 (UTC) :This is AGAIN '''not the point of A TALK PAGE. These kind of things belong in the forums or a blog not here because our talk pages are not subsistence forums and opinions are not appropriate on talk pages. Take it elsewhere already. Lancer1289 (talk) 18:25, August 25, 2012 (UTC) ::That was conjecture, as well as a clarification of the distinctions between a rifle and a pistol, not an opinion. And as it was very much relevant to the content of the article, it does indeed belong on this page. You seem confused as to what the purpose of a talk page is. '''»Anonymous ONI agent« [COMMS] ] 01:23, August 29, 2012 (UTC) :::Yeah, I really knew most of that already and the discussion was started purely on the matter of gameplay, but thanks anyway. Tali's no.1 fan (talk) 15:27, August 29, 2012 (UTC) Armor and AP Ammo Putting a justification for the edit I'm about to remove again--according to the developers, only five weapons have special multipliers against the different types of enemy defenses. Source here. The Mattock is not among these five: it does 100% damage (no special multiplier) against all defenses equally. Then, if you take into account the mechanics of armor on enemies (details in same source, a few posts up), the amount of damage automatically "chopped off" from a single shot/bullet is decreased with AP ammo, so I would actually recommend using AP ammo if you plan to use the Mattock for armored targets. Trandra (talk) 21:30, September 1, 2012 (UTC) Harrier Vs. Argus - Parallels? The Mattock - a semi-automatic, medium-high calibre rifle designed as a DMR has two variants. The M-55 Argus, a burst-fire rifle with very little accuracy but a significantly higher damage per shot, and the Cerberus Harrier, a modified, "modernized" Mattock with a (In-universe) lower recoil, smaller amount of damage per shot, and a fully automatic firing mode. I put forth that these guns exist as distinct parallels in terms of use and function on the battlefield, with one striving for superior efficiency (The Harrier) and the other (The Argus) focusing on closer engagements and higher damage. In other words, elegance versus brute force. Accuracy versus bigger dakka. If you'd like, MOAR dakka versus BIGGER dakka. Some of my colleagues disagree. I put forth that it be mentioned that the two guns are observably parallel in function, but not specifically mentioned to be parallel in intent; that they function in observably parallel ways, but that this might be coincidence. Aside from their parallel function, my argument also rests on the basis that each one exemplifies a particular trait of the original Mattock, with the Harrier focusing on its impressive accuracy and the Argus on its fairly impressive per-shot damage. In other words, they are distinct evolutions of the weapons. Discuss? CaptainThunderdude (talk) 04:00, January 29, 2014 (UTC) Current trivia guidelines are as follows: *"...information players may not have been aware of and is impactful or interesting." *"In practice, most legitimate trivia is comprised of behind-the-scenes information adequately sourced from developers themselves as per the sourcing guidelines." Those are the relevant bits. I don't see this as either of those, and in addition, this is all pretty darn speculative. Lksdjf (talk) 07:19, January 29, 2014 (UTC) ::Well, the first is an opinion, and thus can't be trusted. I consider it interesting and noteworthy that the guns are parallels, and you don't. Looking past this awkward visage of edits and ranks, we both know that, as human beings, we're roughly equals, and something based upon personality is more "speculative" than either of us could ever understand. In other words, the point goes to me because I'm a terrible, horribly biased person. ::The second point, I concede to you, but offer the argument that an observation based upon clear and distinct mechanics requires no "sourcing", as it is self-evident. I doubt you needed to cite the fact that most of the guns fire forwards, or that biotics make a blue glow in most sentient species. Self evidence is evidence in itself. ::Thirdly, we could really do with a speculation tab on some of these pages. I've seen wikis with speculation tabs. Those are fun wikis. I have fun on those wikis. My worthless, entirely speculative opinion is that that's a fun thing to have on a wiki. ::So what I'm saying is, we're tied, you win, and none of the previous facts can deter me. Sorry. I'm relentlessly hardheaded. My dad was actually a rhinoceros. Well, he wasn't, but he did have a fairly big nose, and men in my family have dense skulls. ::So what I'm really saying is, friends who are reading this, come on down! LEEEEEEET'S DIIIIIISSSSSCUUUUUSSSIIIIIOOOOONNNNN!!!!!!! :::Mostly when it comes to weapons in ME3, I'm always amazed had how utterly little & useless information the game gives me for choosing between weapons. And unfortunately the wiki doesn't help much either. You know, practical stuff like great-against-this-enemy, terrible-against-that-one, etc. Cattlesquat (talk) 15:43, January 29, 2014 (UTC) ::::You know, Cattlesquat, that's actually a great point. However, I think summaries of effectiveness versus specific enemies - while an incredibly useful thing to include, seriously, kudos - would take up quite a lot of space in the Player Notes area - perhaps we could petition for an additional tab to be placed, such as "Combat Effectiveness", so we can include this information without overly bloating the Player Notes? CaptainThunderdude (talk) 19:54, January 29, 2014 (UTC) :::::For me, more than anything, it's about the ability to compare various weapons easily. So far this - Google Docs Spreadsheet|ME3 Weapon Stats google doc updated by BSN user Cyonan - is the most useful presentation I've found even though it's super-detailed etc. I guess extra information for each individual weapon on its page would be worth something (like notice the ME2 version of Mattock at least has some usable stats posted on the page), but really an "ME3 Weapons Comparison" page would be the ultimate resource. Better looking than the google doc, and maybe with a pared-down view to call out highlights like DPS and fire rate and whatever. But the issues involved are legion - (a) "valid sourcing rules", (b) "being good enough at wikiness to make a kickass-useful page", and that's before even coming to © "talking the community and authorities into it". So I've presented the thought but I don't have a clear way forward to offer. Cattlesquat (talk) 20:26, January 29, 2014 (UTC)